G.R. No. L-13252; April 29, 1961
CONSUELO TAN VDA. DE ZALDARRIAGA, petitioner, vs. HON. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ETC. and BASILIA F. VDA. ZALDARRIAGA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Basilia F. Vda. de Zaldarriaga filed an action for partition, accounting, and annulment of an ex-parte partition concerning four parcels of land and their sugar quota. After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered a judgment that declared the ex-parte partition null and void, ordered an accounting and payment of sums, awarded damages, and most critically, ordered the physical partition of the properties. The dispositive portion appointed commissioners to effectuate the actual partition. Defendant Pedro Zaldarriaga died after a motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner Consuelo Tan Vda. de Zaldarriaga was appointed as Special Administratrix ad litem for his estate and sought to substitute him and to perfect an appeal.
The trial court, however, dismissed the appeal of the deceased’s estate. It ruled the decision had become final as to Pedro Zaldarriaga, rejecting petitioner’s attempt to adopt the already-approved appeal bond and record on appeal filed by her co-defendants. Petitioner then filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to give due course to her appeal, arguing the dismissal was erroneous because her separate record on appeal was filed within a granted extension and the earlier bond and record were sufficient.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for mandamus to compel the allowance of the appeal should be granted.

RULING

No, the petition for mandamus is denied. The Supreme Court held that while the trial court erred procedurally in not allowing the petitioner to adopt the existing appeal bond and record on appeal, the petition must still be denied on a substantive jurisdictional ground. The Court ruled that the judgment being appealed from was not a final judgment but an interlocutory one. A judgment that orders partition but also appoints commissioners to carry out the actual division, delineation, and submission of a report for court approval is interlocutory. It leaves significant judicial acts to be completed by the trial court before a final disposition of the case under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
The legal logic is anchored on the nature of final versus interlocutory orders. An order is final if it disposes of the subject matter in its entirety, terminating the litigation. In contrast, an interlocutory order requires further steps to fully adjudicate the rights of the parties. Here, the appointment of commissioners and the subsequent proceedings (survey, report, hearing) are essential steps mandated by law before a final adjudication of the partition can be made. Therefore, the decision, despite its extensive dispositive portion, was not appealable as a final judgment at that stage. Consequently, mandamus—a remedy to compel a ministerial duty to allow an appeal—does not lie because there was no final judgment from which a valid appeal could be taken. The Court instructed the trial court to proceed with the partition proceedings in accordance with Rule 71.